It pays to have friends in high places, if you buy some friends who know those movers and shakers. According to a study done at the University of Kansas, the return on investment is quite lucrative.
And of course, let's not forget all the politicians who resign and then work for lobbyist firms or the lobbyists who are extended family of current politicians and make out like bandits.
The system is terribly corrupt. It lends itself to unfair pay to play practices. When a politician can fly on a corporate jet for a couple of hours back to their home state and give an audience to paid lobbyists for the duration of the flight, but can't give the time for a phone call from a constituent, something is wrong. I understand that businesses have a right to have their voices heard. But are they only being heard because they can afford to host fundraisers for the re-election cause of the elected official?
I've given money to campaigns before and volunteered for campaigns for many high-level elected officials. Such low-scale participation has wielded little if any benefit for me, no matter how many hours of my time I gave. When I called upon them when I needed assistance, I got the run around and an eventual "he's just too busy to help out" response. Or worse, I called their Washington offices to express concern about legislation and to ask questions about where they stood on the bill, only to have a staffer speak to me in a "oh, it's one of those pesky constituents calling again" tone of voice and neglect to even ask me what part of his district I was in. Oh, but sometimes it produces a polite form letter response. Lucky me. So where is my 258,449 percent ROI?
Oh that's right. How could I forget? My ROI is in the form of a national debt that per capita likely exceeds my current annual salary and is then passed onto future generations who aren't even able to vote on the spending matters. Elected officials spend my ROI into oblivion helping out those who can afford paid lobbyists but can't manage their businesses effectively and then pay to influence for more hand-outs.
Why don't these businesses just stop paying for lobbying firms, donating to campaigns/PACs, hosting fundraisers and buying fancy dinners and instead invest that money into profitable and proven business strategies that are not dependent on government handouts? From a voter and a consumer's perspective, I don't think that is an unreasonable expectation.
Big companies that spent hundreds of millions lobbying successfully for a tax break enacted in 2004 got a 22,000-percent return on that investment — proof that for those who can afford it, hiring a lobbyist can pay handsome dividends.While the biggest recipients of influence were pharmaceutical companies and technology companies, no doubt those who were receiving stimulus money and bailout funds had similarly sent lobbyists to Washington to plea their case. In fact, according to a nonpartisan group who studied this, the TARP recipients got a whopping 258,449 percent ROI for the $114 million they forked out for political influence.
The figures, compiled by professors at the University of Kansas for a study to be released Thursday, offer a rarely seen glimpse of how the lobbying business works, and why — even as President Barack Obama vows to curb lobbyists' influence — the industry is booming as never before.
And of course, let's not forget all the politicians who resign and then work for lobbyist firms or the lobbyists who are extended family of current politicians and make out like bandits.
The system is terribly corrupt. It lends itself to unfair pay to play practices. When a politician can fly on a corporate jet for a couple of hours back to their home state and give an audience to paid lobbyists for the duration of the flight, but can't give the time for a phone call from a constituent, something is wrong. I understand that businesses have a right to have their voices heard. But are they only being heard because they can afford to host fundraisers for the re-election cause of the elected official?
I've given money to campaigns before and volunteered for campaigns for many high-level elected officials. Such low-scale participation has wielded little if any benefit for me, no matter how many hours of my time I gave. When I called upon them when I needed assistance, I got the run around and an eventual "he's just too busy to help out" response. Or worse, I called their Washington offices to express concern about legislation and to ask questions about where they stood on the bill, only to have a staffer speak to me in a "oh, it's one of those pesky constituents calling again" tone of voice and neglect to even ask me what part of his district I was in. Oh, but sometimes it produces a polite form letter response. Lucky me. So where is my 258,449 percent ROI?
Oh that's right. How could I forget? My ROI is in the form of a national debt that per capita likely exceeds my current annual salary and is then passed onto future generations who aren't even able to vote on the spending matters. Elected officials spend my ROI into oblivion helping out those who can afford paid lobbyists but can't manage their businesses effectively and then pay to influence for more hand-outs.
Why don't these businesses just stop paying for lobbying firms, donating to campaigns/PACs, hosting fundraisers and buying fancy dinners and instead invest that money into profitable and proven business strategies that are not dependent on government handouts? From a voter and a consumer's perspective, I don't think that is an unreasonable expectation.
Sadly, the corruption's run amok on both sides of the aisle. But anyone who reasonably believed that Barry was going to curtail lobbyists in DC, snorted too much cocaine during his victory party, to be worth much of any rational thought for the next several years. Barry lied about lobbyist reform, just as he lied about his Muslim inclinations (and which he proved he lied about in Europe).